Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Judge Rejects Nebraska Gay-Marriage Ban
AP ^ | 5/12/05 | Kevin O'Hanlon

Posted on 05/12/2005 3:30:21 PM PDT by Crackingham

A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements. The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

The judge said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."

Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Nebraska
KEYWORDS: 3branchesofgovt; amendment; buttbuddies; civilwar2; civilwarii; constitution; culturewar; despotism; downourthroats; homosexualagenda; impeachthejudge; inourfaces; josephbataillon; judicialactivism; judicialtyranny; judiciary; ruling; samesexmarriage; stateconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2005 3:30:21 PM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Did I read this right?

A judge was able to overturn a state constitutional ammendment?

How on Earth is that even possible?


2 posted on 05/12/2005 3:33:30 PM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
That's the way, judge! Let these peons know that you Annointed types will makes these decisions for us. Democracy be damned!

I do believe the tree of Liberty grows thirsty...

3 posted on 05/12/2005 3:34:18 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
expressive and intimate associational rights

?????????????

More made up rights.
4 posted on 05/12/2005 3:34:25 PM PDT by visualops (Leftists are lunatics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Sounds like that was the straw the broke the judges back.

5 posted on 05/12/2005 3:34:32 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (Hillary's Chappaquiddick. Check it out at: www.Hillcap.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Bataillon, Joseph F.

Born 1949 in Omaha, NE

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, District of Nebraska
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 7, 1997, to a seat vacated by Lyle E. Strom; Confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 1997, and received commission on September 18, 1997.

6 posted on 05/12/2005 3:34:50 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark
passed overwhelmingly by the voters

Voters, shmoters, who cares what the people want.
7 posted on 05/12/2005 3:35:42 PM PDT by visualops (Leftists are lunatics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

We are getting our EIGHT LONG YEARS OF CLINTON right back at us, alright! On the installment plan!


8 posted on 05/12/2005 3:37:40 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (**AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS NOT SO MUCH "WHO" WE STAND FOR, BUT RATHER "WHAT" WE STAND FOR**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark

"A judge was able to overturn a state constitutional ammendment? How on Earth is that even possible?"

In theory, only when the US Constitution forbids the state action --- for example, the right under some states constitutions to own slaves (I kid not).

In practice, whenever the little pagan dictators in robes say.


9 posted on 05/12/2005 3:37:42 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Yep. Apparently, you CAN ban gay marriage - but it must have no real teeth. That's how this liberal federal judge read it in striking down Nebraska's same sex marriage state constitutional ban.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
10 posted on 05/12/2005 3:37:49 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Seems like the good people of Nebraska need to get on the band wagon to stop the filibuster and start ringing the phones off the off of their Democratic Senator.

Basically, what the filibuster in the US Senate is trying to do is keep more stupid judges like this in office or put them in office.

Why won't the people of Nebraska take action against their Senator about the filibuster?

11 posted on 05/12/2005 3:38:18 PM PDT by topher (John 5:58 + Exodus 21:22 +Jer 1:5 + Gen 9:6 +John 14:6 + Rev 12:1-17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark

It isn't. But these tyrants think that they can. We must stop them!


12 posted on 05/12/2005 3:39:41 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I guess that voting thing is just for show these days.


13 posted on 05/12/2005 3:41:18 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Anyone who thinks we believe Hillary on any issue is truly a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Another dictator in black robes. Another POS.


14 posted on 05/12/2005 3:43:54 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Sounds like that was the straw the broke the judges back.

A number of other state's are similarly afflicted. Quite predictable. What the law is aiming to do is create two labels, "marriage" and "civil union," where eventually both have substantially the same rights and priviliges and legal status. Opposite sex? Married. Same sex? Civil Unioned. "But they aren't married!"

Nebraska - Passed 70-30%
"Marriage ; same-sex relationships not valid or recognized. Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." (Nebraska Constitution Article I, section 29)

http://www.alliancealert.org/aa2004/2004_11_03.htm


15 posted on 05/12/2005 3:44:15 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

And the libs wonder why there needs to be a constitutional amendment. All the supporters of it said that this is exactly what was going to happen.


16 posted on 05/12/2005 3:46:04 PM PDT by diverteach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

in case anyone missed this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402039/posts


we have here a literal plague of judicial tyrany


17 posted on 05/12/2005 3:47:38 PM PDT by sdpatriot (remember waco and ruby ridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

What part of the 10th amendment does this idiot not understand?


18 posted on 05/12/2005 3:47:42 PM PDT by rwilson99 (South Park (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
In theory, only when the US Constitution forbids the state action --- for example, the right under some states constitutions to own slaves (I kid not).

I don't see this judge striking down anti-gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment. Pretty selective.

19 posted on 05/12/2005 3:47:51 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Looks like Nebraska has it's very own "9th Circus Court". I think all these judges have evolved from the same infected gene pool.


20 posted on 05/12/2005 3:48:05 PM PDT by BigFinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson